GPL-compatible means you are allowed to use software under those licenses *from* GPL'd code, not that the GPL copyleft requirement doesn't apply.

My assumption on reading the OP was that they didn't realize MPL and GPL are different animals.

"Flamebait" my ass. You punk ass little kids are so full of shit and know so little about licensing issues that it's absolutely laughable. You rant on about how Novell "owns" the POSIX APIs without knowing SHIT about how the POSIX APIs were developed in the midst of the *nix vendor wars and published as a STANDARD that all the vendors AGREED to implement.

You spew FUD and bullshit about how "interfaces aren't code", have no respect for the work that goes into a clean and well defined interface specification, and generally are so damned wet behind the ears that I think the whole INDUSTRY pissed on your collective heads.

There is no "depends on how he's using it." If it doesn't have an LGPL interface header, you MUST release the code under GPL terms to use it.

The POSIX APIs were agreed to by *all* of the *nix vendors and published as a standard, which includes a lot of the low-level interfaces used by Linux. They are not "owned" by Novell. Novell merely sold an *implementation* of the APIs.

A completely different kettle of fish than Oracle vs. Google.

If you're using GPL code, you have no choice but to release your code under the GPL as well.

What kind of retard claims interfaces aren't code?

Whoever owns or writes the code has copyright on it, from interfaces down to implementation. Anyone who has worked in the software industry for any length of time knows this. There have been dozens upon dozens of lawsuits over the years about people copying functions for spreadsheets, APIs for libraries, and a whole host of related issues. And it always came down in favour of the original author of the interfaces and implementations.

Think about it: What protection does your non-open-source software have if anyone can just use your API to implement an open source variant on the product? There is no way in hell that the entire software industry is going to give up that protection for their products and works.

Some in this thread are going on about the GPL and Linux header files. That only affects people writing drivers -- regular user space code is compiled against the libc interfaces, which are specifically LGPL to allow you to use them for writing products. Products like NVidia's closed-source drivers have always been a legal grey area just begging for a lawsuit to resolve once and for all whether it is permissible for them to write closed source against GPL interfaces. Personally I think if the courts had to make a decision on it, NVidia would lose for the same reasons the commercial vendors want to protect their works. NVidia does not get to dictate what constitutes "fair use" of an API, and neither does Google.

The owner of the API gets to determine what they're going to consider "fair use" and what they're going to consider to be an actionable abuse of their property.

I have never seen any reason nor excuse for the existence of Dalvik and the entire Google stack. Surely the "bright people" at Google could have written some sort of adapter layer for Swing as required for using the OpenJDK/GPL version of Java. But they didn't. Instead they're trying to lock people into the competing Android GUI stack, and are rightfully getting spanked for trying to break the "write once, run anywhere" philosophy of Java.

Google does evil all the time. Sure, Oracle does evil, too, but in this case, it is Google that is the greater of two evils.

You think an illegal immigrant is going to apply for a commercial driver's license as required by taxi companies?

Methinks you're confusing "immigrant" with "illegal immigrant." But don't feel too bad. There are millions of bigots like you out there, so you're not alone.

The most frustrating thing about computers is the media and the general public have greatly overestimated the capabilities of AI and neuroscience research, in no part due to the tendency of some researchers in those fields to puff up the importance of what they've accomplished in these vast fields of the unknown. We don't "know" how the brain works -- we have some coarse models that fit and some experimental research that seems to fit those models, but we don't even have the beginnings of research that could be applied to therapeutic techniques that aren't much better than electro-convulsive "therapy".

We have some pretty impressive pattern matching and learning algorithms for very specific problems, but can't even begin to approach the way the brain self-learns and expands its own capabilities.

Yet there is the perfectly valid argument that we don't need features like self-awareness or general-purpose learning in order for an AI to be useful. Just look at what some of the more complex expert systems can do compared to their human counterparts, or how Watson won at Jeopardy without having even the vaguest "understanding" of what the questions were or what the meaning of the answers it gave were.

I'd even go so far as to argue that "self awareness" isn't necessary or useful for an artificial intelligence at all. Just look at all the animal species on the planet which are self-aware, yet don't have a level of intelligence that would be considered "useful" for understanding and interacting with humans conversationally. If anything, self awareness is the "boogeyman" that has people worried about an AI that might try to take over the world. If an AI isn't aware of itself as an entity, it can hardly try to conquer anyone unless it's been programmed to do so (How can "I" try to rule the world if there is no "I"?)

While I find the technology interesting, I've never thought of a single thing I'd want to use one to manufacture or build. I am completely bereft of ideas for things I need (other than a new computer.)

Life is ever so much less stressful when you don't have a long list of "needs". :D

Now your iPhone can scream "Ouch!" when you hit it with a hammer out of frustration. :P

"I want document management, but not a document management utility."

Don't fight it. Use the right tools for the job.

You can run a business without incorporating. As long as the registrant is a "legal entity" for operating a business, they should be able to register a commercial domain.

I've lost track of how many times I've been burned by a driver update from Microsoft that turned out to be incompatible with my hardware, likely because Windows Update misidentified my hardware as compatible with the driver. I no longer install any drivers through Windows Update, but instead go to the vendors sites and get them straight from the source.

Fortunately, the drivers are always optional updates, so you can just flag them as hidden and ignore them.